Conversations at a Tea Party
by: Mike Ignatowski on September 16th, 2009 | 9 Comments »
I went to my first “Tea Party” rally this past weekend in the city of Kingston in upstate New York . It was a small rally of about 200 people held on the same day as the big Tea Party rally in Washington DC. I went to watch, listen, and talk to some of the people there. Yes, I witnessed a good deal of anger and fear on display, with much of the anger directed at Obama. There was also a small counter protest of people holding up signs in favor of health care reform. I was pleasantly surprised to see a few people from each side willing to cross over and have conversations with each other. I’ve always been a strong proponent of the need for such civil conversations and I joined in a few of them. It soon became apparent, though, that most people needed some training and practice at having such conversations. The participants generally approached the interactions with the intent of scoring as many debate points as possible on every topic that came up. The discussions usually degenerated into emotional arguments with neither side really listening to the other. To hold civil discussions with people you strongly disagree with, my experience suggests that you need to take an alternative approach. If I may make some suggestions…
People need to resist the urge to argue each and every point of disagreement. Enter the discussion with the idea that it is impossible to change someone’s political stance in such circumstances, so don’t even try. Instead, enter the discussion with the following three goals. First, to listen, I mean really listen to what’s truly bothering or frightening the other person. Ask questions only to elicit their deeper motivations and concerns, not to argue any specific point. Second, try to find some common ground. When this was done during the discussions I witnessed, people were genuinely surprised to see how much common ground and agreement they could reach with each other. Finally, perhaps the most important goal that you can achieve in such circumstances is to put a human face on the opposition and to show them that people they disagree with can be friendly and reasonable people, not just someone to be feared.
Editor’s Note 9/22/09: If you liked this post don’t miss Miki Kashtan’s post on Town Hall Blues.
I’ve tried to do it and I am pretty restrained in general, so I should be able to do it, but I can’t seem to help myself: I have such ridiculous belief in my own reasonableness I try to persuade and then it goes downhill. I missed my chance when I was in Kingston: I should have tagged along with you to watch you in action.
It is very hard for people to take in others ideas which are different from theirs–we just need to settle down and listen–that is also good advice for myselt.
Thank you very much for this great piece of advice. It is definitely not easy to do it they way you suggest but it is really the only way for discussion to achieve anything at all, I think.
Isn’t it a dubious to claim to be listening simply to be more effective in arguing one’s own preconceived certainties? Shouldn’t one have an open mind that others might be right?
I find myself questioning the wisdom of empathy — and it is a very uncomfortable questioning, too. I want to believe that empathetic engagement is the political and spiritual “solution” to the ranting, raging politics of abuse. Where I stumble — and I think it is where Obama stumbles, too — is that the empathetic person tries to court common ground only to find that the other has absolutely NO commitment — or emotional, psychological capacity — to do the same — and, voila, you have Obama calling for a reasonable discussion, and Pelosi crying on camera, expecting the Other to cease their abuse.
But they will not and I believe, cannot. Those who have not experienced caring and empathy in their lives cannot give it, and the punitive parenting that is upheld as righteous by the raging right strongly suggests this is the case.
I once worked with a psychotherapist who used to say, “Don’t go to the butcher for a loaf of bread.” Don’t ask someone for something they do not have.
Asking/expecting reasoned, empathetic exchange from those who have committed to a political strategy of abuse is like going to the butcher for a loaf of bread. They will not give what we are asking for because they CANNOT.
I worry that NSP will fall into the same trap. It seems to me that we need to be clearer about the difference between the values we are calling for, and the political strategies — skills might be a better word, the political skills we need to make them happen.
As I said, this questioning bothers me deeply.
I think I am in the same ball park as MimiK. My orientation is Interdisciplinary social science: history-sociology-psychology. I am persuaded that the basic perspective and perception (remember those 60s terms?) are the primary divisions, really, philosophies that forge this fire..
I have tried for years to have dialogue with two doctrinaire conservatives. I will agree to our similarities, assure them–and I do–comprehend their positions. I do not deal in the discursive trivia that I find on their side.
Being unable to conceive of a cooperative, integrative perception I have found that these people have never been able to comprehend anything from a liberal-progressive framework. They reject out of hand, then revert to asking for “a list”of specific arguments to their erroneous “facts,” such as Beck being wrong.
When I do, and place the larger issues before them it is beyond their capacity. There is no context for communication when one is unable to face their fear and are convinced that nothing under any Democratic administration from FDR onward has validity. One un-reconstructed rebel even blames Lincoln, a Republican of a different kind. I find it beyond hope and have asked both to cease writing. I waste time and intelligence.
WOW! what a contrast in approaches to world changing. I think that Mimi K must not know very many people personally from the so called raging right in order to speak this way about parenting and peace building potentials.
i also have a lot of discouragement about the ways in which polarized dividivenss have become so entrenched domestically and globally we are in a gridlock and paralysis of cooperative collaborative partcipatory democracy.
i see far more ill coming from rigidly stereotyping people who are apssionate in their disagreement, though granted, it is extremely difficult to practice, for many of us, what working approaches craig ahs shared with us, i eprsonally believe that the difficulty is within me and my own struggles to be kind and respectful with people who may reject me for being a feminist progressive muslim redneck farmer.
i mean there is a world of button pushing just in my identity!
but i also know that craig is speaking words from a seasoned peacebuilder who ahs that gift of opennes that i may lack at times and with some folks.
it is such a blessing to be abel to red and to discuss adn to take this into my ehart and a soul to work with .
L’Shana Tova all, eid mubarik to my muslim brethren reading here, with love to all of eevry faith and political persuasion…may our eyes be opened to the rigidty and rage within ourselves and our like minded clans, so that we can also remove these blocks from our own lives and in so doing allow others to shine before us in all their precious God-given complexity and human potential, and precious capacities for good
God i have LD and also major typing problems i so wish yuou could edit this stuff after it posts. sorry i hope you can make sense of this. above
[...] talking about how to talk with people across the political divide. Mike Ignatowski wrote about his Conversations at a Tea Party, and Miki Kashtan about Town Hall [...]